my first advice would be to stay away from all forms of exotic wager's that have higher takeout than w-p-s. i would do my w-p-s betting in Canadien tracks and NYRA because they pay to the dime while the other's get you for crazy breakage.

try to watch the races on the television screen and get a feel for the track to see if there is any bias to it. stay away with horses that look like they are going to be up against the bias.

if you can't break the race down to 4 or less contenders, don't play it. if you do have the race figured to those 4 or less try betting only the one that is the highest priced.

if you are going to bet big money, make sure you bet it early and not late. if you are betting the last flash you can only hurt your price. to go one step further i would say stay away from betting big money period. try to hold your bets down to $50 or less per pool. bet even smaller in place and show pools. but NYRA gives you a good shake because they have bigger win pools and you can put some type of a dent into them without getting hurt to badly on the price if you think you have an edge to your bet.

Split it into 2 or 3 bets. Have your last bet down before 5MTP. Let the value seekers place their bets after you which will allow your selection to "float" up to where it belongs.

In SoCal where I bet, this is mostly important if you're betting on a horse that is roughly 10/1 or higher. I bet the shorter priced horses on the same schedule, but the float isn't nearly as dramatic, and sometimes the price will "fix", or even drop further. But definitely, on the longer priced horses, feed the pool early and in increments.

My key horse has to be a price, 8-1 or more at post. First play is a win bet on it. Second play is the exacta, that selection over all. Third play is a saver play, my top four over my key selection for the exacta just in case my key comes in second. My fourth play is the trifecta, my selection over my top four, over all. Fifth play is for the dime super, my selection over the top four, over all, over all again.

__________________
"A winning horse either sets or overcomes the pace of the race it runs against" - Ray Taulbot

My key horse has to be a price, 8-1 or more at post. First play is a win bet on it. Second play is the exacta, that selection over all. Third play is a saver play, my top four over my key selection for the exacta just in case my key comes in second. My fourth play is the trifecta, my selection over my top four, over all. Fifth play is for the dime super, my selection over the top four, over all, over all again.

If you have data to support an answer, is this strategy successful for you in the long run? Are all of the bets, including the saver exactas profitable for you? Or do you find that one piece of the pie is good, for example, maybe the trifectas?

A person that I know says his win bets are profitable as long as he is making saver exactas. But his saver exactas take away all of his profit. So, he has tried win betting only. Then, because he has fear of losing the money because he doesn't have his savers in play, he handicaps more conservatively and then does not bet longer priced horses, which are the ones that gave him the win bet profit in the first place. Quite a conundrum, right?

If you have data to support an answer, is this strategy successful for you in the long run? Are all of the bets, including the saver exactas profitable for you? Or do you find that one piece of the pie is good, for example, maybe the trifectas?

A person that I know says his win bets are profitable as long as he is making saver exactas. But his saver exactas take away all of his profit. So, he has tried win betting only. Then, because he has fear of losing the money because he doesn't have his savers in play, he handicaps more conservatively and then does not bet longer priced horses, which are the ones that gave hf playing to win.im the win bet profit in the first place. Quite a conundrum, right?

I didn't know you knew me. lol I think alot of what you said, at least in my case, is having a big enough bankroll. It sounds like he is doing what I do alot, playing afraid to loss money instead of playing to win.

I didn't know you knew me. lol I think alot of what you said, at least in my case, is having a big enough bankroll. It sounds like he is doing what I do alot, playing afraid to loss money instead of playing to win.

I agree that "fear of regret" or fear of losing money is the cause of a lot bad decisions and losses. But I don't think it is - at least in totality - solved by having a big bankroll.

I think that fear is caused by a deep-rooted internal belief system that what a person is doing isn't correct or is at least in some manner deficient. Because if a person truly had conviction and belief that what he was doing was correct, then the fear would disappear.

In general, this fear is ego driven. The person fears loss because if he loses, he/she fears he/she will lose acceptance, love, or identity, especially identity. We do almost everything we do as a matter of conforming to our identity. We wear jerseys of our sports teams as a matter of conforming to our identity that we are fans of a particular team. We profess hatred or love for politicians based on how they conform (or not) to our values, which are part of our egoic identy. And people make "saver" bets so they aren't losers as a matter of maintaining their identity.

So, to experience a breakthrough and not "need" to place these saver bets, one has to change his/her beliefs. Then and only then will a person be able to bet with unshakeable confidence on horses - long or short - and have a chance of profitabilty.

I know many will consider this psycho-babble, and that's ok with me. What you think of me is none of my business anyway, but I think this thread brings to light what is more of a mental issue than a strategy issue. And like Yogi Berra said, "half of the game is 90% mental" (or something like that).

The conventional POV is (as Master Ludi said) is to just bet the overlays. As Master Zero said, the correct answer must be some form of Kelly.

While both of these statements are true, they are fraught with problems.

In order to know who the overlays are, two things must be know about the horses being considered:

1) The probabilities
2) The odds

Since we have neither one, by very definition, there can be no true known overlays.

The formula for Kelly is, simply put,:

ADVANTAGE / ODDS

Again, we have neither of those.

When I say, "WE" have neither, I mean those of us with "normal" resources. (I include myself within that group.)

Given a large enough and properly defined database, along with an remarkable analysis engine, reasonably good estimates can be made of both probabilities and odds.

The "Whales" have such resources.

Does that mean everything is hopeless?
No. But it does mean that we must take a direction that does not find us colliding with the whales in every race and still find those "overlays" that Masters Zero and Ludi correctly spoke of.

My Approach
My take on this is that there are 3 things necessary to win at the races. I am certainly not saying that this is the only way to do it. (That would be both arrogant and presumptuous.)

Neither am I saying that there is nobody among "us little people" making probabilities and properly estimating odds to such a degree that profitability is possible.

What I am saying is that I am simply not smart enough, educated enough, or resource-laden enough, to compete with the whales.

Note: My belief is that if I attempt to "do what the whales are doing," that will put me in direct competition with them, a battle I will most surely lose.

I would include in that endeavor any effort that attempts to use a large database to estimate probabilities on horses with some type of weighting scheme.

So, here is my approach.
(I've posted most of this on PA in the past, BTW.)
1. Pick good contenders.
2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
3. Determine if the race itself has value.

1. Pick good contenders.
Actually, this means "Pick good non-contenders."

Since most people who pick contenders believe the answer is to be found in total winners, this differs greatly from what most people do.

The goal is to be able to say, "When I say a horse is a non-contender, he doesn't win even close to what the public thinks."

More specifically, my goal is to pick non-contenders that will consistently lose about 35-60% of the money wagered by their backers.

(Contenders are those left in after the N/Cs are removed.)

2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
How does one do that if they are not making probabilities?

Well, the answer is that I am making probabilities, albeit not very good ones. LOL

My plan of attack - and it is relatively easy to duplicate (WHAT?) - is to assign relative probabilities to all of the horses in the race and then penalize the N/Cs 90% of their probabilities.

The impact is such that a 2/1 favorite who has been deemed a "non-contender" might be assigned a ridiculously low probability, like 4%, or something else that is insanely low.

Doesn't really matter. Once I have determined who the contenders are, my goal is primarily to determine who the best bets among them are.

Please note that at no time do I find an ODDS LINE to have value. I always make a probability that will total to 100% for the field.

About that "WHAT?"
I emphasize that word because most people would say that making a probability is not EASY. It is precisely easy.

It only becomes difficult if you need an ACCURATE probability.

So, what good is an inaccurate probability?

Remember, all we need is something that produces RELATIVELY GOODprobabilities BETWEEN OUR CONTENDERS.

More #2: Value of Contenders
The purpose of the probabilities is to use them in conjunction with SOME PROJECTION OF FINAL ODDS to determine which of the contenders are THEORETICAL GOOD BETS.

Those "good bets" are marked as HORSE TO PLAY.

Note: Final Odds Projection is actually not very difficult. (WHAT?)

Seriously, it isn't. What I do is use several factors weighted together, but you don't have to. Just take the odds at 0, 1 or 2 minutes to post as your estimate. (For this purpose, the best of those would be the first flash of "0" minutes to post, but it really won't matter much.)

I suppose that last sentence could use its own "what?" but this post is already way long. LOL

3. Determine if the race itself has value.
This is where the rubber meets the road, boys and girls, and the answer lies in a relatively simple multi-step formula. (I'm sure that I could make it look all mathematical and s**t but instead I will teach the principles and the steps.

The Principle
1a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are going to bet, the less money we should bet in the race.

1b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are NOT going to bet, the MORE money we should bet in the race.

2a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "contenders," the less money we should bet in the race.

2b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "NON-CONTENDERS," the MORE money we should bet in the race.

The conventional POV is (as Master Ludi said) is to just bet the overlays. As Master Zero said, the correct answer must be some form of Kelly.

While both of these statements are true, they are fraught with problems.

In order to know who the overlays are, two things must be know about the horses being considered:

1) The probabilities
2) The odds

Since we have neither one, by very definition, there can be no true known overlays.

The formula for Kelly is, simply put,:

ADVANTAGE / ODDS

Again, we have neither of those.

When I say, "WE" have neither, I mean those of us with "normal" resources. (I include myself within that group.)

Given a large enough and properly defined database, along with an remarkable analysis engine, reasonably good estimates can be made of both probabilities and odds.

The "Whales" have such resources.

Does that mean everything is hopeless?
No. But it does mean that we must take a direction that does not find us colliding with the whales in every race and still find those "overlays" that Masters Zero and Ludi correctly spoke of.

My Approach
My take on this is that there are 3 things necessary to win at the races. I am certainly not saying that this is the only way to do it. (That would be both arrogant and presumptuous.)

Neither am I saying that there is nobody among "us little people" making probabilities and properly estimating odds to such a degree that profitability is possible.

What I am saying is that I am simply not smart enough, educated enough, or resource-laden enough, to compete with the whales.

Note: My belief is that if I attempt to "do what the whales are doing," that will put me in direct competition with them, a battle I will most surely lose.

I would include in that endeavor any effort that attempts to use a large database to estimate probabilities on horses with some type of weighting scheme.

So, here is my approach.
(I've posted most of this on PA in the past, BTW.)
1. Pick good contenders.
2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
3. Determine if the race itself has value.

1. Pick good contenders.
Actually, this means "Pick good non-contenders."

Since most people who pick contenders believe the answer is to be found in total winners, this differs greatly from what most people do.

The goal is to be able to say, "When I say a horse is a non-contender, he doesn't win even close to what the public thinks."

More specifically, my goal is to pick non-contenders that will consistently lose about 35-60% of the money wagered by their backers.

(Contenders are those left in after the N/Cs are removed.)

2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
How does one do that if they are not making probabilities?

Well, the answer is that I am making probabilities, albeit not very good ones. LOL

My plan of attack - and it is relatively easy to duplicate (WHAT?) - is to assign relative probabilities to all of the horses in the race and then penalize the N/Cs 90% of their probabilities.

The impact is such that a 2/1 favorite who has been deemed a "non-contender" might be assigned a ridiculously low probability, like 4%, or something else that is insanely low.

Doesn't really matter. Once I have determined who the contenders are, my goal is primarily to determine who the best bets among them are.

Please note that at no time do I find an ODDS LINE to have value. I always make a probability that will total to 100% for the field.

About that "WHAT?"
I emphasize that word because most people would say that making a probability is not EASY. It is precisely easy.

It only becomes difficult if you need an ACCURATE probability.

So, what good is an inaccurate probability?

Remember, all we need is something that produces RELATIVELY GOODprobabilities BETWEEN OUR CONTENDERS.

More #2: Value of Contenders
The purpose of the probabilities is to use them in conjunction with SOME PROJECTION OF FINAL ODDS to determine which of the contenders are THEORETICAL GOOD BETS.

Those "good bets" are marked as HORSE TO PLAY.

Note: Final Odds Projection is actually not very difficult. (WHAT?)

Seriously, it isn't. What I do is use several factors weighted together, but you don't have to. Just take the odds at 0, 1 or 2 minutes to post as your estimate. (For this purpose, the best of those would be the first flash of "0" minutes to post, but it really won't matter much.)

I suppose that last sentence could use its own "what?" but this post is already way long. LOL

3. Determine if the race itself has value.
This is where the rubber meets the road, boys and girls, and the answer lies in a relatively simple multi-step formula. (I'm sure that I could make it look all mathematical and s**t but instead I will teach the principles and the steps.

The Principle
1a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are going to bet, the less money we should bet in the race.

1b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are NOT going to bet, the MORE money we should bet in the race.

2a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "contenders," the less money we should bet in the race.

2b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "NON-CONTENDERS," the MORE money we should bet in the race.

Two ExamplesExample 1
You are betting 40% of the pool, and your contenders make up 70% of the pool.

PctNotBet=60%
PctNotCont=30%

$100 x 60% x 30% = $18.

Example 2
You are betting 30% of the pool, and your contenders make up 48% of the pool.

PctNotBet=70%
PctNotCont=52%

$100 x 70% x 52% = $36

My experience has been that the higher the RaceBetAmt the more profitable the race is. Conversely, the smaller the RaceBetAmt amount, the lower the profit.

There is a tipping point at which the races produce a loss.

In my own handicapping, I have found that the tipping point to be $30. Wagers below $30 lose money, and the lower the bet size goes, the more the lose.

SUMMARY
What happens is that you wind up betting more money on the races where you've eliminated the greatest part of the pool.

The hardest part of this entire process is step #1 (picking good non-contenders). The other two steps are really pretty easy.

Perhaps this will provide you with some ideas.

Best Regards,
Dave Schwartz

OVERLAY'S method in creating a good odds line and overlays is as good a method as I've seen. It takes some work manually but like everything else is worth the added effort.

__________________Predicting the outcome of a horse race is an activity that exerts continuing appeal to the extraordinarily opulent. It is intellectually lucrative albeit fiscally ruinous.-Richard Epstein

I agree that "fear of regret" or fear of losing money is the cause of a lot bad decisions and losses. But I don't think it is - at least in totality - solved by having a big bankroll.

I think that fear is caused by a deep-rooted internal belief system that what a person is doing isn't correct or is at least in some manner deficient. Because if a person truly had conviction and belief that what he was doing was correct, then the fear would disappear.

In general, this fear is ego driven. The person fears loss because if he loses, he/she fears he/she will lose acceptance, love, or identity, especially identity. We do almost everything we do as a matter of conforming to our identity. We wear jerseys of our sports teams as a matter of conforming to our identity that we are fans of a particular team. We profess hatred or love for politicians based on how they conform (or not) to our values, which are part of our egoic identy. And people make "saver" bets so they aren't losers as a matter of maintaining their identity.

So, to experience a breakthrough and not "need" to place these saver bets, one has to change his/her beliefs. Then and only then will a person be able to bet with unshakeable confidence on horses - long or short - and have a chance of profitabilty.

I know many will consider this psycho-babble, and that's ok with me. What you think of me is none of my business anyway, but I think this thread brings to light what is more of a mental issue than a strategy issue. And like Yogi Berra said, "half of the game is 90% mental" (or something like that).

The conventional POV is (as Master Ludi said) is to just bet the overlays. As Master Zero said, the correct answer must be some form of Kelly.

While both of these statements are true, they are fraught with problems.

In order to know who the overlays are, two things must be know about the horses being considered:

1) The probabilities
2) The odds

Since we have neither one, by very definition, there can be no true known overlays.

The formula for Kelly is, simply put,:

ADVANTAGE / ODDS

Again, we have neither of those.

When I say, "WE" have neither, I mean those of us with "normal" resources. (I include myself within that group.)

Given a large enough and properly defined database, along with an remarkable analysis engine, reasonably good estimates can be made of both probabilities and odds.

The "Whales" have such resources.

Does that mean everything is hopeless?
No. But it does mean that we must take a direction that does not find us colliding with the whales in every race and still find those "overlays" that Masters Zero and Ludi correctly spoke of.

My Approach
My take on this is that there are 3 things necessary to win at the races. I am certainly not saying that this is the only way to do it. (That would be both arrogant and presumptuous.)

Neither am I saying that there is nobody among "us little people" making probabilities and properly estimating odds to such a degree that profitability is possible.

What I am saying is that I am simply not smart enough, educated enough, or resource-laden enough, to compete with the whales.

Note: My belief is that if I attempt to "do what the whales are doing," that will put me in direct competition with them, a battle I will most surely lose.

I would include in that endeavor any effort that attempts to use a large database to estimate probabilities on horses with some type of weighting scheme.

So, here is my approach.
(I've posted most of this on PA in the past, BTW.)
1. Pick good contenders.
2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
3. Determine if the race itself has value.

1. Pick good contenders.
Actually, this means "Pick good non-contenders."

Since most people who pick contenders believe the answer is to be found in total winners, this differs greatly from what most people do.

The goal is to be able to say, "When I say a horse is a non-contender, he doesn't win even close to what the public thinks."

More specifically, my goal is to pick non-contenders that will consistently lose about 35-60% of the money wagered by their backers.

(Contenders are those left in after the N/Cs are removed.)

2. Determine "value" among those contenders.
How does one do that if they are not making probabilities?

Well, the answer is that I am making probabilities, albeit not very good ones. LOL

My plan of attack - and it is relatively easy to duplicate (WHAT?) - is to assign relative probabilities to all of the horses in the race and then penalize the N/Cs 90% of their probabilities.

The impact is such that a 2/1 favorite who has been deemed a "non-contender" might be assigned a ridiculously low probability, like 4%, or something else that is insanely low.

Doesn't really matter. Once I have determined who the contenders are, my goal is primarily to determine who the best bets among them are.

Please note that at no time do I find an ODDS LINE to have value. I always make a probability that will total to 100% for the field.

About that "WHAT?"
I emphasize that word because most people would say that making a probability is not EASY. It is precisely easy.

It only becomes difficult if you need an ACCURATE probability.

So, what good is an inaccurate probability?

Remember, all we need is something that produces RELATIVELY GOODprobabilities BETWEEN OUR CONTENDERS.

More #2: Value of Contenders
The purpose of the probabilities is to use them in conjunction with SOME PROJECTION OF FINAL ODDS to determine which of the contenders are THEORETICAL GOOD BETS.

Those "good bets" are marked as HORSE TO PLAY.

Note: Final Odds Projection is actually not very difficult. (WHAT?)

Seriously, it isn't. What I do is use several factors weighted together, but you don't have to. Just take the odds at 0, 1 or 2 minutes to post as your estimate. (For this purpose, the best of those would be the first flash of "0" minutes to post, but it really won't matter much.)

I suppose that last sentence could use its own "what?" but this post is already way long. LOL

3. Determine if the race itself has value.
This is where the rubber meets the road, boys and girls, and the answer lies in a relatively simple multi-step formula. (I'm sure that I could make it look all mathematical and s**t but instead I will teach the principles and the steps.

The Principle
1a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are going to bet, the less money we should bet in the race.

1b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we are NOT going to bet, the MORE money we should bet in the race.

2a. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "contenders," the less money we should bet in the race.

2b. The greater the percentage of pool represented by the horses we call "NON-CONTENDERS," the MORE money we should bet in the race.

Two ExamplesExample 1
You are betting 40% of the pool, and your contenders make up 70% of the pool.

PctNotBet=60%
PctNotCont=30%

$100 x 60% x 30% = $18.

Example 2
You are betting 30% of the pool, and your contenders make up 48% of the pool.

PctNotBet=70%
PctNotCont=52%

$100 x 70% x 52% = $36

My experience has been that the higher the RaceBetAmt the more profitable the race is. Conversely, the smaller the RaceBetAmt amount, the lower the profit.

There is a tipping point at which the races produce a loss.

In my own handicapping, I have found that the tipping point to be $30. Wagers below $30 lose money, and the lower the bet size goes, the more the lose.

SUMMARY
What happens is that you wind up betting more money on the races where you've eliminated the greatest part of the pool.

The hardest part of this entire process is step #1 (picking good non-contenders). The other two steps are really pretty easy.

Perhaps this will provide you with some ideas.

Best Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I feel, from talking to horse players on a regular basis for the past 3 decades, that this is one of the biggest hurdles many players face. They instinctively equate an odds line to a probability line. They are absolutely, 100%, two different things. $s bet on any particular horse makes absolutely zero impact on the horse's probability of winning. It seems to be a very difficult concept for many players to grasp.

They instinctively equate an odds line to a probability line. They are absolutely, 100%, two different things. Why yes, yes they are. My wagering is plagued by this ongoing confusion. Thank you for pointing out on of the most salient facts of the parimutuel game.

Personally, I've never met an "overlay" (i.e. make a line and bet into the tote odds) player who was profitable with any significant number of plays.

Neither have I met a "Kelly player" who was profitable.

Dave, I was referring to Overlay who was or is possibly still an advertiser on PA. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. Probably shouldn't have quoted your text when saying that. My apologies.

__________________Predicting the outcome of a horse race is an activity that exerts continuing appeal to the extraordinarily opulent. It is intellectually lucrative albeit fiscally ruinous.-Richard Epstein

Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising programdesigned to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.